Mr. Julien Michel Belleri v. USA
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5155
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Belleri was born in France (1983) and came to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident; he lived in the U.S. with his parents until 1994 and thereafter with various arrangements in Colombia and the U.S.
- A 1999 claim arose that Belleri obtained derivative U.S. citizenship when his mother naturalized and the parents had a Colombian legal separation; derivative citizenship allegedly occurred by operation of law, not by adjudication.
- In 2000, Belleri applied for a certificate of citizenship, which was denied after he allegedly missed an interview; a 2005 divorce of his parents affected custody but not necessarily citizenship status at that time.
- In 2007–08, Belleri was detained by immigration authorities for eight months on the theory that he was an alien unlawfully in the U.S.; he challenged his detention through Bivens and FTCA claims.
- The district court initially held jurisdiction on the mistaken premise that Belleri is a U.S. citizen; subsequent events included a Department notice (2012) canceling his citizenship certificate, and a 2012–2013 shift in posture arguing that he may be an alien; the appellate court vacated and remanded to resolve citizenship and jurisdiction first.
- The central issue became whether the district court has subject-matter jurisdiction depending on Belleri’s citizenship status and, if alien, whether §1252(g) bars the suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Belleri is a U.S. citizen for jurisdictional purposes | Belleri contends derivative citizenship was obtained in 1999. | Government asserts Belleri is an alien; §1252(g) bars suits by aliens. | Remand to determine citizenship; not decided yet. |
| If Belleri is an alien, whether §1252(g) bars the district court’s jurisdiction | If citizen, §1252(g) does not apply; otherwise, may bar claims. | Section 1252(g) strips jurisdiction over claims by aliens arising from removal actions. | To be addressed after citizenship is resolved. |
| Whether the district court should consider foreign-law questions to resolve derivative citizenship | Foreign-law issues may be material to derivative citizenship. | No notice of reliance on foreign law; district court should decide first on citizenship. | Foreign-law issue must be considered; district court should decide in the first instance. |
| Whether the district court must decide jurisdiction before addressing merits | If jurisdiction exists, merits may be addressed. | Jurisdiction must be clear before merits; §1252(g) implications depend on citizenship. | Court emphasizes jurisdiction first; remand for jurisdictional determinations. |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (Supreme Court 2001) (strong presumption of judicial review of administrative action)
- Hamdi ex rel. Hamdi v. Napolitano, 620 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2010) (limits of executive detention and due process considerations)
- United States v. Ceja-Prado, 333 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (foreign-law determinations require notice and opportunity to brief)
- Scarfo v. Ginsberg, 175 F.3d 957 (11th Cir. 1999) (jurisdictional challenges may be raised at any time)
- Opelika Nursing Home, Inc. v. Richardson, 448 F.2d 658 (5th Cir. 1971) (jurisdiction takes precedence over merits; reformulations of jurisdictional issues)